The basic question is this: are words more than their symbols? — NOS4A2

Absolutely. You do not need an inner monologue to conclude this. First, there are many words that have multiple meanings through definition alone.

The word 'crane' can mean a bird, or it can mean a machine that you use to lift heavy objects. What this logically leads to is the meaning of the word is based on 'context'. Context is based on the environment, your previous words, and conveyed intentions. With context, we can take the word crane and use it for something it was never intended to, like a pun or a person's name.

"Crane was so good at operation, it was is the crane flew."

The multiple meanings of words suggests to me that people have suppled various meanings to the words rather than the word supplying various meanings to them. The context or “use” may hint at your intention, your meaning, but the meaning itself is not present in the word, context, or use itself.

the meaning itself is not present in the word, context, or use itself. — NOS4A2

So where is the meaning?

So far I’m gravitating towards a biological account of meaning, or rather, an act of biology.

It's not biological in the way of a leaf or of a toe bone. They have locations.

So, where is the meaning?

The multiple meanings of words suggests to me that people have suppled various meanings to the words rather than the word supplying various meanings to them. — NOS4A2

This is true. A word without any meaning is simply a noise. Once meaning is applied to a word, then communicated to others it becomes part of a shared language between the two. If this expands out, this can become part of the shared language of many people like slang. Eventually it can be recognized as a valid word with definitions as part of a full blown language.

The context or “use” may hint at your intention, your meaning, but the meaning itself is not present in the word, context, or use itself. — NOS4A2

If context is the involvement of people's intentions, environment, culture and state of being, I'm not sure what's left after its elimination. Perhaps what you are intending is that a person's intention to use a word is not necessarily understood by another. Which is fine. There is the meaning as intended to be conveyed, the meaning as the other person accepts the conveyance, and the meaning as both understand and misunderstand each other.

I don't either. I just don't have it all the time. It's not a judgement, it's just the way my consciousness is. I wasn't aware of it until I met someone who had an internal voice all the time. It's through contrast that things come into awareness. — frank

It is through contrast that we can come to realize the differences in our experiences from each other. This sort of introspection is entangled with the language of reporting experience. It is not a denial of unique experiences to question to what extent such comparisons reveal about another life as lived by another. Bearing witness to oneself is not an activity that is guaranteed to give us what is present against a background of what is imagined. Sharing what is imagined is one of the self-evident functions of language.

The conditions of introspection bring into question what the "internal" scene consists of. Does the experience of ourselves pop-up like a prairie dog in a field or does it emerge through development over time?

Attaining the competence to act independently is directly involved in the personal sense of privacy within relationships and exchanges with other people. Being able to speak for oneself is a way to resist some other agent from filling in the blanks for you. Having the ability is learned along with not doing it all the time.

The report of, "not being able to turn the voices off", sounds like it inhibits a person the way over-deliberation of a plan interferes with performance during the work carrying it out. It is natural to ask what is fundamental and necessary to a person and what are activities that can change.

It's not biological in the way of a leaf or of a toe bone. They have locations.

So, where is the meaning?

Like I said, it’s an act of biology. If you want to find photosynthesis, for instance, you can find it at a leaf. One place you will not find photosynthesis is across, between, and external to leaves.

Like I said, it’s an act of biology. — NOS4A2

So where is it then? One can dissect a leaf, or a biome, which goes across and between the plants and animals involved. Where do I go to dissect or observe meaning? Will I find it in a biology text book?

Let's go for something simpler. Can you provide a biological account of how some language element, such as a proper name, functions?

Like I said, I’m leaning more towards meaning as a biological act. The thing, its location, is the biology. To mean, like thinking, understanding, speaking, and so on, is something the biology does.

I don’t think I can provide a biological account of proper names or any other phrase because there is nothing biological about proper names. I have already said the words are arbitrary and conventional. What I can say is those who have taken up the task of staring at words and sentences in order to divine some coherent philosophy are largely overlooking the most important structures involved in producing them, and as such language in general. I suspect that the most coherent answers will be provided by fields such as biolinguistics.

are words more than their symbols? — NOS4A2

No, words are symbols, which is more than the marks, sounds, gestures etc. of which they're made.

No, words are symbols, which is more than the marks, sounds, gestures etc. of which they're made. — jkop

Words are not symbols. Words are container of meanings.

How is a symbol more than the marks, sounds, gestures, of which it is made?

Words are container of meanings.

The word as vehicle theory. Whereabouts on the word itself is the meaning?

The word as vehicle theory. Whereabouts on the word itself is the meaning? — NOS4A2

The point of words is to convey the meanings they contain. Every words has their meanings. If you said a word with no meaning, then it wouldn't mean anything, and no one would understand what it meant (including yourself), hence it is not a word, is it?

Symbols are the pictorial entities, and they are supposed to carry meanings too, but in totally different forms and ways.

something the biology does. — NOS4A2

Meaning is not something biology does. The location of meaning is found in the practices of certain social biological organisms.

As asked the question of whether words are more than their symbols is ill conceived. Symbols have meaning. 'water' and 'agua' is a symbols 'that have the same meaning. Each of those symbols is made up of other symbols. In each of these cases the meaning is a matter of convention.

Words are not symbols. Words are container of meanings. — Corvus

There are many kinds of symbols, you know, verbal (words) and non-verbal (pictures, gestures). They refer to things in various ways, but their primary function is identification. I don't know of a good reason to exclude words from symbols. Do you?

How is a symbol more than the marks, sounds, gestures, of which it is made? — NOS4A2

Well, unlike the mark on a page, which can be found meaningful for its own sake (e.g. beautiful, surprising etc) its usability for symbolization gives it additional or more meaning. The former might be located in the properties of the mark that arise relative to an observer (biology?).

I don't know of a good reason to exclude words from symbols. Do you? — jkop

Words are read, and understood by its meaning alone. There is no room for guessing or imagining just by reading alone (although people do them but there must be extra information such as situation or the source of the words come from). Words says what they mean, and no more. Otherwise, words cannot be used in Logic or Science.

Symbols are visual perception only, and their meanings are not precise. One has to imagine, guess or relate to the real world objects, activities or lives in order to get the meanings. Symbols are also for aiding religious meditations for the enlightenments or deciphering the divine and esoteric messages from them.

I would say they are totally different form of carrying and delivering meanings, and also for the purpose too.

For a simple example, can a poetry be written in symbols? No.
Can symbols write a History of Philosophy? No.
What words do, symbols can't. What symbols do, words can. (Words are more powerful, versatile and flexible with its capability making up sentences, and forming logical arguments, propositions ...etc)

Words says what they mean, and no more. Otherwise, words cannot be used in Logic or Science.

Symbols are looked at, and their meanings are not precise, but one has to imagine, guess or relate to the real world objects, activities or lives. Symbols are also used to be looked at for religious meditations.

I would say they are totally different form of carrying and delivering meanings. — Corvus

The symbols used for logic are not imprecise, scientists are not guessing when they use symbols for chemical compounds etc. The word 'symbol' is also used for something visual or vague as in dark magic cult ritualistic symbols. But that's no reason to exclude words from being symbols.

Words says what they mean, and no more. — Corvus

The logician Charles Dodgson, better known as Lewis Carroll, would not agree. The March Hare tells Alice:

... you should say what you mean.

To which she responds:

I do — at least I mean what I say — that's the same thing you know.

The Hare corrects her:

... you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see!

Here is one that my students found amusing. This actually happened. I was running a few minutes late to my class. One of the double doors to the classroom building was not working. It has a sign on it: "Not working. Use other door" and an arrow pointing to the other door. I explained that I was late because I could not figure out whether the arrow was pointing to door that was broken or if the sign was on the door that was broken.

The symbols used for logic are not imprecise, scientists are not guessing when they use symbols for chemical compounds etc. — jkop

Without the contents, the logic symbols would mean nothing meaningful at all. It would only mean something with the contents.

The chemical compounds symbols are not symbols as such, but they are type of abbreviations or codified words.

Here is one that my students found amusing. This actually happened. I was running a few minutes late to my class. One of the double doors to the classroom building was not working. It has a sign on it: "Not working. Use other door" and an arrow pointing to the other door. I explained that I was late because I could not figure out whether the arrow was pointing to door that was broken or if the sign was on the door that was broken. — Fooloso4

Good point. Must admit sentences we see in daily life can be vague at many times.
Would it have been clearer, if it said "This door is not working. Use the other door."?

Actually, I think that is what the sign said. Is 'this' door the one with the sign or the one the arrow was pointing to?

I told them that I stood there confused until someone came along and opened the door, that if they hadn't I might have missed the class.

I agree that words and sentences can be vague. But maybe due to lack of supplied or accuracy of the information. With more detailed information and accuracy in writing in the supplied sentences, maybe it could deliver clearer meanings. Not sure, if it is to do with the natural inadequacy of language in general, or fault of the writers.

It would depend on the situations too. Words can be super accurate in most situations too.
If you see a sign saying on the door "Don't disturb", how can you be mistaken for to knock on the door or ring the bell?

One thing I have found, and I am sure others here have as well, is that no matter how clearly and accurately I state something there will be some who think I am saying something else.

I might think that if anyone else was knocking it would be a disturbance but surely not if I was.

I might think that if anyone else was knocking it would be a disturbance but surely not if I was. — Fooloso4

But you wouldn't be knocking on your own door. :rofl:

I don’t think I can provide a biological account of proper names or any other phrase because there is nothing biological about proper names. — NOS4A2

Meaning is biological and yet biology cannot explain proper names. Not a lot of use, this idea that meaning is biological.

Meaning is not something biology does. The location of meaning is found in the practices of certain social biological organisms.

Yes meaning is a practice of organisms. And each organism is identical to its biology.

Meaning is biological and yet biology cannot explain proper names. Not a lot of use, this idea that meaning is biological.

There’s no use in confusing proper names with meaning, either, but here we are.